|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 2, 2022 2:40:46 GMT
I usually put a spoon in my mouth before I go to sleep, in case I lose my faith in spoons overnight. I think you're trying to put a possessive umbrella over many things, giving them a good aspect, and sneaking religious faith in there like a naughty smuggler. Not at all. The conversation before was "faith," not "religious faith." Everybody has "faith"—confidence in and allegiance to foundational axioms which cannot be proven, and more than that—fundamental motivations (often unexamined). "Religious faith" is merely one kind or expression of faith. To nitpick further, when Christianity originated, it more resembled a philosophy—a way of living aiming towards a telos—than a "religion" (which, at that time, was more about maintaining right relationships with the gods, and, unlike the religions of its time, had no sacrifices, temples, or images, resulting in the accusation that they were "atheists." The same accusation had been levelled at the Jews earlier, when it was revealed there was no "god" in their temple. Christians went further and had no temple. The substitution of the "church building" as "place of worship" is actually a betrayal of what the New Testament actually teaches—that humans are the "temple of God's spirit." But when there is a perceived blank, paganism (which comes naturally) tends to rush in to fill it. When we talk about "different religions" as if "religion" is one of many facets of life (and in this case, one option out of many based on private opinion), we are more beholden to the Enlightenment than we realize—there is no historical evidence that prior to the Enlightenment, anyone really thought that way (and most people not living in the west don't think that way today). Not so. At least some of us want proof. If there's no proof there's no confidence or allegiance I for one support, for example, democracy, for what I honestly believe are rational reasons. You show me theocracy beats it, I change sides. That ain't faith. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 2, 2022 6:11:51 GMT
Atheists, poor empty creatures that they are, will grasp at any straw that they can find to bash Christians. No, Putin is not a Christian nor is he a friend to religious liberty, frequently prosecuting and jailing evangelicals. Russia has laws prohibiting free religious expression.
So, Senate candidate Lauren Witzke is stupidly wrong about Putin, as is anyone that pretends that brutal leaders of the past were actually Christian.
Saying Putin is a Christian is as dishonest as saying that Joe Biden is a Christian.
How'bout it folks.. a round of applause for Paleo's expertly executed 'No true Scotsman' fallacy..
Join us later for his 'hasty generalization' and 'red herring' demonstrations.. Always a crowd-pleaser. Followed by a solid ten minutes of Que doing his best James Dean? Where do I get tickets? |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 2, 2022 6:13:38 GMT
Actually, atheism is for shallow, weak creatures who fill that void by tormenting, ridiculing and criticizing Christians. It takes no moral courage to remain an empty vessel, nor intellect to persecute those who are religious. Have you noticed that the immoral/amoral hatred and intolerance seems to flow from the atheists, not the Christians?
And you're confused.....pontificating and putting on ludicrous airs and graces is simply called being British.
Your lack of self awareness is depressing. Note, I was merely responding to your unprovoked, foolish jibe at atheists. Then you get all hissy about it, presumably part of your paranoid world view about "persecution", you dozy git. I expect the only British people you've seen are on the goggle box; Downton Castle or whatever. I don't know about that. He might have a British dentist. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 2, 2022 6:21:36 GMT
Mercy, that is one of my favorite quotes. Thank you for sharing it. Here's another: The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. - Unknown
And more from C.S. Lewis
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” ― C.S. Lewis
And a few for our poor, empty atheist friends: “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” ― C.S. Lewis
“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” - C.S. Lewis
“And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.” - C.S. Lewis
Also this: “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger - according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.” - C.S. Lewis Lewis flips on its head the claims of Freud and Feuerbach that the idea of "God" is some imaginary manifestation of human wishful thinking. Not necessarily, especially if you read those ideas as they might have been meant to be read, and what Feuerbach meant was that the limits of our understanding precludes that knowledge. Any knowledge we claim of God is baseless unless we can prove or demonstrate His existence. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 2, 2022 6:30:01 GMT
Why would you worship yourself sicko? Atheist, that's a question for you, not me. I don't worship self, but that's all you have left to worship. You not only worship yourself, you even worship the worst version of yourself. The bleached, exclusionist, bigoted, sexist, white nationalist version of yourself. I pray for your enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 14:43:23 GMT
Also this: “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger - according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.” - C.S. Lewis Lewis flips on its head the claims of Freud and Feuerbach that the idea of "God" is some imaginary manifestation of human wishful thinking. Not necessarily, especially if you read those ideas as they might have been meant to be read, and what Feuerbach meant was that the limits of our understanding precludes that knowledge. Any knowledge we claim of God is baseless unless we can prove or demonstrate His existence. "Consciousness of God is human self-consciousness; knowledge of God is human self-knowledge . By the God you know the human, and conversely, by the human, you know the God. The two are one." - Ludwig Feuerbach, in The Essence of Christianity (1841). |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 14:46:05 GMT
Not at all. The conversation before was "faith," not "religious faith." Everybody has "faith"—confidence in and allegiance to foundational axioms which cannot be proven, and more than that—fundamental motivations (often unexamined). "Religious faith" is merely one kind or expression of faith. To nitpick further, when Christianity originated, it more resembled a philosophy—a way of living aiming towards a telos—than a "religion" (which, at that time, was more about maintaining right relationships with the gods, and, unlike the religions of its time, had no sacrifices, temples, or images, resulting in the accusation that they were "atheists." The same accusation had been levelled at the Jews earlier, when it was revealed there was no "god" in their temple. Christians went further and had no temple. The substitution of the "church building" as "place of worship" is actually a betrayal of what the New Testament actually teaches—that humans are the "temple of God's spirit." But when there is a perceived blank, paganism (which comes naturally) tends to rush in to fill it. When we talk about "different religions" as if "religion" is one of many facets of life (and in this case, one option out of many based on private opinion), we are more beholden to the Enlightenment than we realize—there is no historical evidence that prior to the Enlightenment, anyone really thought that way (and most people not living in the west don't think that way today). Not so. At least some of us want proof. If there's no proof there's no confidence or allegiance I for one support, for example, democracy, for what I honestly believe are rational reasons. You show me theocracy beats it, I change sides. That ain't faith. Proof only exists in mathematics. You probably want evidence (?). Evidence and faith are not mutually opposed. Neither are evidence and reason (that nasty Enlightenment dichotomy raises its head again). You bother to vote! Why? Because you have confidence, not just in the system, but that it's even worthwhile to have a system at all. If you think I'm arguing that "we all have faith therefore we all act without reason and sans evidence," you are misreading me. We all have faith. Many of us have reasonable faith, a faith that is buttressed by evidence. But not "proof." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 14:51:25 GMT
Well, if "having faith something" is more important than what that thing is (which it seems like you're saying), then you can "have faith in" killing puppies (or something worse). In other words, if somebody finds fulfillment, happiness, meaning, purpose, or whatever ("having faith in") in "killing puppies," is that okay? Because it's "faith in something"? I get your meaning, but ultimately, you have to replace the word, 'Faith', with, 'believe without proof', for your sentence to have meaning. So, 'faith in the painful demise of puppies', becomes, 'belief without proof in the painful demise of puppies'. Do you agree that either way, the statement makes no sense.
Are you asking if it is possible to have Faith that there are puppies that die brutally? Again, it doesn't really make sense, because at whatever level you view this, it is testable. It might be very difficult to test, but it is possible, and therefore is not an appropriate target of Faith. It would be a perfect target for belief, however.
Faith not only has no proof, it DEMANDS no proof. It MUST have no proof. If even a single shred of proof is possible, Faith is not occurring. No 'leap', or choice', can happen, because it is the proof that is facilitating the belief, instead of our choice. In your other thread, you said, 'merely' make the choice to have Faith, as if doing so is easy.
Let me ask you, is having Faith easy?
Freon
Faith is not "believe that..." (e.g., "that a certain something exists"). It is "belief in..." I live just outside Toronto. There are millions of people in the area that have an irrational faith in the Toronto Maple Leafs, and have been perennially disappointed since 1967. I don't believe in the Toronto Maple Leafs. That doesn't at all mean I doubt their existence. They exist. But they are not worth my faith. In contrast, I do have belief in the Toronto Blue Jays. Why? Because that is reasonable. I can't prove it (proof only exists in mathematics, or, arguably, in hindsight), but there is strong evidence to suggest that the Toronto Blue Jays are worthy of my faith. That is Søren Kierkegaard. Any time someone buys a house, gets married, or makes the choice to have a child, they are making a leap of faith (because nobody, not having been married, bought a house, or had a child, truly knows what it entails). But it's not an unreasonable leap. It's not a blind leap devoid of reason or evidence. That would be foolish, especially when we're taking about things that matter—things that aren't sports. I didn't, by the way, in my marriage vows, "demand proof." |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 16:38:45 GMT
I get your meaning, but ultimately, you have to replace the word, 'Faith', with, 'believe without proof', for your sentence to have meaning. So, 'faith in the painful demise of puppies', becomes, 'belief without proof in the painful demise of puppies'. Do you agree that either way, the statement makes no sense.
Are you asking if it is possible to have Faith that there are puppies that die brutally? Again, it doesn't really make sense, because at whatever level you view this, it is testable. It might be very difficult to test, but it is possible, and therefore is not an appropriate target of Faith. It would be a perfect target for belief, however.
Faith not only has no proof, it DEMANDS no proof. It MUST have no proof. If even a single shred of proof is possible, Faith is not occurring. No 'leap', or choice', can happen, because it is the proof that is facilitating the belief, instead of our choice. In your other thread, you said, 'merely' make the choice to have Faith, as if doing so is easy.
Let me ask you, is having Faith easy?
Freon
Faith is not "believe that..." (e.g., "that a certain something exists"). It is "belief in..." I live just outside Toronto. There are millions of people in the area that have an irrational faith in the Toronto Maple Leafs, and have been perennially disappointed since 1967. I don't believe in the Toronto Maple Leafs. That doesn't at all mean I doubt their existence. They exist. But they are not worth my faith. In contrast, I do have belief in the Toronto Blue Jays. Why? Because that is reasonable. I can't prove it (proof only exists in mathematics, or, arguably, in hindsight), but there is strong evidence to suggest that the Toronto Blue Jays are worthy of my faith. That is Søren Kierkegaard. Any time someone buys a house, gets married, or makes the choice to have a child, they are making a leap of faith (because nobody, not having been married, bought a house, or had a child, truly knows what it entails). But it's not an unreasonable leap. It's not a blind leap devoid of reason or evidence. That would be foolish, especially when we're taking about things that matter—things that aren't sports. I didn't, by the way, in my marriage vows, "demand proof." You did not answer my question. Is having Faith easy?
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 2, 2022 17:43:19 GMT
Everybody has "faith"—confidence in and allegiance to foundational axioms which cannot be proven....Not so. At least some of us want proof. If there's no proof there's no confidence or allegiance I for one support, for example, democracy, for what I honestly believe are rational reasons. You show me theocracy beats it, I change sides. That ain't faith. Proof only exists in mathematics. You probably want evidence (?). Evidence and faith are not mutually opposed. Neither are evidence and reason (that nasty Enlightenment dichotomy raises its head again). You bother to vote! Why? Because you have confidence, not just in the system, but that it's even worthwhile to have a system at all. If you think I'm arguing that "we all have faith therefore we all act without reason and sans evidence," you are misreading me. We all have faith. Many of us have reasonable faith, a faith that is buttressed by evidence. But not "proof." My A level Maths is a loooong time ago, but having just used that nice chap Mr. Google to support my hazy memory- no. Proof means something slightly different in maths, but in normal English is fairly congruent with 'evidence'. I have evidence that voting is a worthwhile exercise; I have evidence that, with rather large caveats, the system works. Or at least, clunks along. In religion, you really don't have evidence. You really do act without reason and sans evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 20:47:45 GMT
Faith is not "believe that..." (e.g., "that a certain something exists"). It is "belief in..." I live just outside Toronto. There are millions of people in the area that have an irrational faith in the Toronto Maple Leafs, and have been perennially disappointed since 1967. I don't believe in the Toronto Maple Leafs. That doesn't at all mean I doubt their existence. They exist. But they are not worth my faith. In contrast, I do have belief in the Toronto Blue Jays. Why? Because that is reasonable. I can't prove it (proof only exists in mathematics, or, arguably, in hindsight), but there is strong evidence to suggest that the Toronto Blue Jays are worthy of my faith. That is Søren Kierkegaard. Any time someone buys a house, gets married, or makes the choice to have a child, they are making a leap of faith (because nobody, not having been married, bought a house, or had a child, truly knows what it entails). But it's not an unreasonable leap. It's not a blind leap devoid of reason or evidence. That would be foolish, especially when we're taking about things that matter—things that aren't sports. I didn't, by the way, in my marriage vows, "demand proof." You did not answer my question. Is having Faith easy?
Freon
Sorry, it's a good question. It's both yes and no. Many people have faith without trying. They accept the premises of the culture, the basic framework of "what is true and trustworthy." That's easy. Peter Berger, in The Heretical Imperative, describes what he calls a "plausibility structure"—a framework of understanding that determines what is or isn't "plausible." What we deem "rational" or "reasonable" is, at first grasp, handed down to us by culture. That kind of faith is easy. Beyond that, not so much. Departing from the "plausibility structure" of our present context is less easy. Not taking for granted mindsets like democracy, individualism, materialism, consumerism (a belief demonstrated more by our actions than our verbalizations), etc. That's not easy, because you're swimming against the current. Of course, there are "smaller currents"; if you accept, say, the "Christian faith" of your parents, that's probably pretty easy as well—depending on to what extent you allow it to be challenged and what your responses to the challenges are. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 20:48:54 GMT
Proof only exists in mathematics. You probably want evidence (?). Evidence and faith are not mutually opposed. Neither are evidence and reason (that nasty Enlightenment dichotomy raises its head again). You bother to vote! Why? Because you have confidence, not just in the system, but that it's even worthwhile to have a system at all. If you think I'm arguing that "we all have faith therefore we all act without reason and sans evidence," you are misreading me. We all have faith. Many of us have reasonable faith, a faith that is buttressed by evidence. But not "proof." My A level Maths is a loooong time ago, but having just used that nice chap Mr. Google to support my hazy memory- no. Proof means something slightly different in maths, but in normal English is fairly congruent with 'evidence'. I have evidence that voting is a worthwhile exercise; I have evidence that, with rather large caveats, the system works. Or at least, clunks along. So by "proof" you mean "what is convincing to me. No? Well...actually, no. What would qualify for you as "evidence" in this regard? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 21:12:18 GMT
You did not answer my question. Is having Faith easy?
Freon
Sorry, it's a good question. It's both yes and no. Many people have faith without trying. They accept the premises of the culture, the basic framework of "what is true and trustworthy." That's easy. Peter Berger, in The Heretical Imperative, describes what he calls a "plausibility structure"—a framework of understanding that determines what is or isn't "plausible." What we deem "rational" or "reasonable" is, at first grasp, handed down to us by culture. That kind of faith is easy. Beyond that, not so much. Departing from the "plausibility structure" of our present context is less easy. Not taking for granted mindsets like democracy, individualism, materialism, consumerism (a belief demonstrated more by our actions than our verbalizations), etc. That's not easy, because you're swimming against the current. Of course, there are "smaller currents"; if you accept, say, the "Christian faith" of your parents, that's probably pretty easy as well—depending on to what extent you allow it to be challenged and what your responses to the challenges are. For someone who professes to have Faith, you're very dodgy when confronted with the basics of it.
And I understand why. It's such an important value to you, that to treat it as similar to any other aspect of our humanity, somehow devalues it in your eyes.
But it doesn't. That is ALSO a choice.
Now stop quoting other people's opinions, and use YOUR brain to think about Faith. The only thing we have learned from your response is that having Faith, REAL Faith, is hard. I agree. Now, why is it hard? Because if you can answer this, then we finally get to the core of what Faith is. And considering you believe you have true Faith, the real deal, is it not important to understand exactly what it is you have?
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 22:01:37 GMT
Sorry, it's a good question. It's both yes and no. Many people have faith without trying. They accept the premises of the culture, the basic framework of "what is true and trustworthy." That's easy. Peter Berger, in The Heretical Imperative, describes what he calls a "plausibility structure"—a framework of understanding that determines what is or isn't "plausible." What we deem "rational" or "reasonable" is, at first grasp, handed down to us by culture. That kind of faith is easy. Beyond that, not so much. Departing from the "plausibility structure" of our present context is less easy. Not taking for granted mindsets like democracy, individualism, materialism, consumerism (a belief demonstrated more by our actions than our verbalizations), etc. That's not easy, because you're swimming against the current. Of course, there are "smaller currents"; if you accept, say, the "Christian faith" of your parents, that's probably pretty easy as well—depending on to what extent you allow it to be challenged and what your responses to the challenges are. For someone who professes to have Faith, you're very dodgy when confronted with the basics of it.
And I understand why. It's such an important value to you, that to treat it as similar to any other aspect of our humanity, somehow devalues it in your eyes.
But it doesn't. That is ALSO a choice.
Now stop quoting other people's opinions, and use YOUR brain to think about Faith. The only thing we have learned from your response is that having Faith, REAL Faith, is hard. I agree. Now, why is it hard? Because if you can answer this, then we finally get to the core of what Faith is. And considering you believe you have true Faith, the real deal, is it not important to understand exactly what it is you have?
Freon
1. Dodgy? How? 2. Other peoples' opinions? Clarify why you think I don't have my own. 3. In what way(s) is faith "similar to any other aspect of our humanity"? What does that even mean? What are these "aspects"? Toes? Physicality? Ambition? Bad temper? I've already defined "faith." You can actually find the definition in the dictionary and you can understand it in the context of the usage of the word historically and by those who can communicate clearly about it. To reduce faith to "a believe without evidence that is a choice" is actually the dodgy option that makes no sense in the contexts in which the word is use. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 22:18:44 GMT
For someone who professes to have Faith, you're very dodgy when confronted with the basics of it.
And I understand why. It's such an important value to you, that to treat it as similar to any other aspect of our humanity, somehow devalues it in your eyes.
But it doesn't. That is ALSO a choice.
Now stop quoting other people's opinions, and use YOUR brain to think about Faith. The only thing we have learned from your response is that having Faith, REAL Faith, is hard. I agree. Now, why is it hard? Because if you can answer this, then we finally get to the core of what Faith is. And considering you believe you have true Faith, the real deal, is it not important to understand exactly what it is you have?
Freon
1. Dodgy? How? 2. Other peoples' opinions? Clarify why you think I don't have my own. 3. In what way(s) is faith "similar to any other aspect of our humanity"? What does that even mean? What are these "aspects"? Toes? Physicality? Ambition? Bad temper? I've already defined "faith." You can actually find the definition in the dictionary and you can understand it in the context of the usage of the word historically and by those who can communicate clearly about it. To reduce faith to "a believe without evidence that is a choice" is actually the dodgy option that makes no sense in the contexts in which the word is use. In your other post, you never defined Faith, only the consequences of having it.
How can you possibly say you have something, that you can't even explain to someone else?
I have clearly explained what Faith is. If I am wrong, in your opinion, then explain why.
I have no idea what you think Faith is, and I think neither do you.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 2, 2022 22:26:25 GMT
1. Dodgy? How? 2. Other peoples' opinions? Clarify why you think I don't have my own. 3. In what way(s) is faith "similar to any other aspect of our humanity"? What does that even mean? What are these "aspects"? Toes? Physicality? Ambition? Bad temper? I've already defined "faith." You can actually find the definition in the dictionary and you can understand it in the context of the usage of the word historically and by those who can communicate clearly about it. To reduce faith to "a believe without evidence that is a choice" is actually the dodgy option that makes no sense in the contexts in which the word is use. In your other post, you never defined Faith, only the consequences of having it.
How can you possibly say you have something, that you can't even explain to someone else?
I have clearly explained what Faith is. If I am wrong, in your opinion, then explain why.
I have no idea what you think Faith is, and I think neither do you.
Freon
No, see, I did define it. Faith is defined as follows: "Confidence in and allegiance to something or someone." That's it. I could also call it "believing trust." That you reject this definition is different from "I haven't defined it." I have. And it's pretty close to a dictionary definition. But what do you think faith is? What is this "thing" that leads to but isn't "confidence in and allegiance to something or someone"? What is your definition? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 2, 2022 22:41:27 GMT
In your other post, you never defined Faith, only the consequences of having it.
How can you possibly say you have something, that you can't even explain to someone else?
I have clearly explained what Faith is. If I am wrong, in your opinion, then explain why.
I have no idea what you think Faith is, and I think neither do you.
Freon
No, see, I did define it. Faith is defined as follows: "Confidence in and allegiance to something or someone." That's it. I could also call it "believing trust." That you reject this definition is different from "I haven't defined it." I have. And it's pretty close to a dictionary definition. But what do you think faith is? What is this "thing" that leads to but isn't "confidence in and allegiance to something or someone"? What is your definition? Confidence in, and allegiance = Faith? Do you have allegiance to the afterlife? Do you have confidence in good and evil? It's sort of silly sounding. But, do you choose to believe in the afterlife, even though you have no proof? Do you choose to believe in good and evil, even though you have no proof? That does not sound more 'right' to you?
Those two choices (confidence and allegiance) are the result of Faith, not Faith itself. You have confidence and allegiance BECAUSE you believe in something so strongly, it has earned them. You would never give that allegiance, or that confidence, if you didn't believe there was a reason to. And it is that belief, chosen when there is no empirical reason to do so, which is the 'leap' of Faith that is so often spoken of. If you have proof, it's not really a leap, is it. It is believing, specifically when there is NO proof, that makes it so hard.
I get that my explanation seems like an oversimplification, and therefore, must be inaccurate, or at best, vague. But it turns out that many of the things we find difficult to understand about the human condition, are actually so simple to understand, that they are overlooked, in favor of something unnecessarily more complicated. And let's face it, if they ARE more complicated, certainly gives more reason to have organized religion to explain it to us.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 3, 2022 19:49:22 GMT
No, see, I did define it. Faith is defined as follows: "Confidence in and allegiance to something or someone." That's it. I could also call it "believing trust." That you reject this definition is different from "I haven't defined it." I have. And it's pretty close to a dictionary definition. But what do you think faith is? What is this "thing" that leads to but isn't "confidence in and allegiance to something or someone"? What is your definition? Confidence in, and allegiance = Faith? Do you have allegiance to the afterlife? Non sequitur. I do not have "faith in the afterlife." You are presuming again. Are you confusing "belief about" with "belief in" again? Agreed, but I can be patient with you. Again with the confusion of "belief in" and "belief about." Um...no, that's not how language works. See the other thread. Once again, you are insisting on the Enlightenment divide between "faith" and "reason." The word (and meaning of) "faith" existed prior to the Enlightenment. On the contrary, your explanation is increasingly obtuse. Non sequitur again. Your presumptions are revealing themselves again. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Mar 3, 2022 20:15:51 GMT
Confidence in, and allegiance = Faith? Do you have allegiance to the afterlife? Non sequitur. I do not have "faith in the afterlife." You are presuming again. Are you confusing "belief about" with "belief in" again? Agreed, but I can be patient with you. Again with the confusion of "belief in" and "belief about." Um...no, that's not how language works. See the other thread. Once again, you are insisting on the Enlightenment divide between "faith" and "reason." The word (and meaning of) "faith" existed prior to the Enlightenment. On the contrary, your explanation is increasingly obtuse. Non sequitur again. Your presumptions are revealing themselves again. I am totally ok that you cannot see Faith this way.
If what you have works for you, that's great.
I am truly only trying to help you, because having helped others in the target audience I've already described to you, I know that for those with a different mindset, this revelation is life-changing.
Peace.
Freon
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Mar 4, 2022 1:30:11 GMT
Not necessarily, especially if you read those ideas as they might have been meant to be read, and what Feuerbach meant was that the limits of our understanding precludes that knowledge. Any knowledge we claim of God is baseless unless we can prove or demonstrate His existence. "Consciousness of God is human self-consciousness; knowledge of God is human self-knowledge . By the God you know the human, and conversely, by the human, you know the God. The two are one." - Ludwig Feuerbach, in The Essence of Christianity (1841). Do you agree that Feuerbach was discussing our limits as human beings here, and elsewhere? One of his core doctrines involved the necessary humanity of the divine, that necessity based on the limits of human beings to comprehend anything beyond our understanding, which a truly omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being would be, i.e., beyond our human comprehension. |
|
